To the editor:
I want to be clear: I fully support our Veterans Service Office and the veterans of Lincoln County.
I have not engaged in any discussions that foreshadowed the removal of general funds to our Veterans Service Office office prior to the levy proposal. I’ve previously asked the Board to have detailed and open discussions about our overall financial situation. I’ll continue to advocate for our collaboration.
If our Veterans Service Office office anticipates projected general fund staffing vulnerabilities these were not specifically articulated in the Aug. 6 commission meeting.
My concern is not about the overall inherent value of the Veterans Service Office office or its mission — it’s about how this levy proposal came forward, the finer details of discussion in the meeting and how the levy was processed following the motion.
When the idea of a levy was first presented at our Aug. 6 Board of Commissioners meeting it was placed on the agenda as an action item. I understood it as a proposal to augment existing general fund support — not to replace it.
At that meeting, the board received a single letter from the Veterans Service officer. No draft ballot language or supporting fiscal analysis was presented or discussed. The motion passed by commissioners directed staff to prepare the necessary materials for a levy — but it did not include a contingency for reviewing or approving the final ballot language.
After the meeting, Order #08-25-330 — the official order calling for the election — was drafted. My signature was applied to that order without my having had the opportunity to review or approve the final text. Did my fellow commissioners review this document?
My mistake was not asserting the commission and the public had a full chance to review the language before the measure was sent to households.
The result is that voters are now being asked to consider a proposal that many, including me, initially understood differently. The ballot language reflects a shift from augmentation to replacement of general fund support — something that was not articulated clearly in our open session. I take responsibility for not catching this and asserting we circle back well before ballots were distributed.
I believe our community wants to support veterans but also deserves full transparency about the financial implications and timing of this proposal.
A deeper look at our general fund, the continued impact to all departments, the long-term sustainability of the Veterans Service Office, and whether this philosophical shift — moving a department from the county’s base budget to a levy — is truly the right approach. Imagine a truly inclusive discussion and what we might learn.
If the levy passes and there are surplus dollars, shall we simply create a reserve fund within this budget? With increased service demand (thanks to PACT Act, etc.), our local office may further need additional outreach, faster claim assistance, and more staff. Our veterans deserve care and compensation, and we are compelled to ensure their protection. The levy may help match capacity to demand that is yet foreseen.
As a commissioner, it’s my responsibility to ensure the community has the clarity and information it deserves to make decisive, informed choices. I regret not asking these questions when they would have been most helpful.
I remain committed to our veterans and to transparent, responsible county governance. Moving forward I will continue to advocate for articulate and timely financial analysis of the use and sustainability of taxpayer resources.
— Casey Miller, Newport, Lincoln County commissioner
